Excess payment recovery after significant time lapse from a protected pay policy is unsustainable.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has ahssailed Annexure P-8, issued by the Director of Higher gEducation, Himachal Pradesh on 7.3.2011, whereby an iamount of Rs. 3,03,450/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, as having been paid in excess to the petitioner.

2. The impugned order reveals that the excess amount was stated to have been paid to the petitioner by the controlling officer i.e. Principal GSSS, Jaunaji, District Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Solan and Principal GBSSS, Solan from the year 2000 onwards.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the services of the petitioner were taken over by Education Department unde r a policy of the State Government, from Himachaol Pradesh State Electronic Development Corporation (for short “HPSEDC”), as the petitioner along with rmany other employees of the said organization had been rendered surplus. One of the specific terms of the taking over of the services of the petitioner was that his pay being paid by the HPSEDC was to be protected.

4. In this background, the impugned order Annexure P-8 was issued on the premise that despite of the pay protection order of petitioner, the same was not brought to the notice of the controlling officer and resultantly, the petitioner was granted the benefit of increments, which he otherwise, was not entitled.

5. Noticeably, the petitioner held Class-III post, as his services were taken over as Clerk in the Department of Education. The recoveries, as sought from the petitioner vide impugned order AnnexureP-8 was after a gap of eleven years. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner shall be squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334, which has been followed by this Couort in the matter of S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of H. P. & others, CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019, decided on 24r.3.2022.

6. Recently, the same view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & others, SLP (C) No. 5918 of 2024, decided on 4.4.2025.

7. It being so, the impugned recovery against the petitioner being in the teeth of aforesaid judgments cannot be sustained.

8. In result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-8 dated 7.3.2011 is quashed and set aside. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner shall be restored the benefit of pay scale that was being granted to him immediately before passing of impugned order Annexure P-8.

9. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.